The board considered multiple policy options for affordable housing, each with distinct implications for Milton’s development strategy. One option maintained the current requirement of 15% affordable units at 80% of the area median income (AMI). Another option proposed a reduction to 8% at 60% AMI to serve lower-income households, though this would result in fewer units and possibly slower construction. Additional options included differentiated requirements based on project size, seeking a balance between the number of affordable units and their affordability level.

The discussion revealed a commitment to reaching Safe Harbor status to prevent large developments under the 40B program from negatively impacting the town. Members debated the feasibility of increasing the affordable unit percentage above 15%, considering the current economic climate and developer hesitancy. There was also mention of potential in-lieu fees for smaller developments to contribute financially instead of building on-site affordable units.

Legal considerations were a major theme, with the recent Cambridge case prompting caution about potential ramifications for Milton’s zoning discussions. Despite the complexities, the board affirmed that the economic feasibility analysis would support maintaining the 15% requirement at 80% AMI, in line with existing bylaws. The analysis methodology, developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and approved by the state, was highlighted as reliable.

Further discussions explored the administration of affordable housing agreements, with some members advocating for a straightforward approach given current staffing constraints. There was a push for transparency in the decision-making process. A motion was eventually made to draft a memo endorsing the 15% option.

In addition to affordable housing, the meeting addressed issues related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the complexities of site plan review bylaws. Concerns were raised about the cost and procedural clarity for homeowners seeking to construct ADUs. The board discussed the necessity for initial guidance from the building department and the potential use of the town’s GIS system for preliminary assessments to reduce expenses for applicants.

The conversation also touched on the need for clearer regulations regarding do-protected uses, such as religious and educational institutions. The board acknowledged the challenges of aligning local bylaws with state regulations, particularly regarding site plan reviews for these protected categories. Suggestions were made to create a distinct framework within the bylaws to address these unique cases.

The meeting concluded with a review of the town’s capital improvement needs, highlighting a substantial backlog of funding requests. The Capital Improvement Committee faces a projected need of approximately $220 million over the next five years, with an annual budget of only about $1 million.